Exactly. The GOP are not wrong because they’re the GOP. They’re wrong because they’re wrong, at least in this instance and with increasing frequency in recent years for the reason stated above.
Likewise, the Democrats are not right merely because they’re Democrats - they’re frequently wrong too. But the GOP’s current tactic of temper-tantrum politics is a whole new level of wrong.
Of course, Biden was:
So - a very loose precedent, then.
Sure, sure.
So far as you’re aware, has there been a previous situation that would allow a tighter comparison?
By that I mean:
Where the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties?
Because to my eyes, Biden’s commentary is reasonably close to the current Senate sentiment. I could just as easily speculate that his supposed willingness to consider (your #3) arose from the hypothetical nature of the situation he faced. After all, he was clearly signaling his intent that such a nomination would be inappropriate – otherwise, why say anything? To announce that the Senate would consider a nominee is hardly news. Right? What was his message?
Fuck me, is it June already? Where DID the time go?
It doesn’t really matter. He said that he did not say that there should not be a nomination, and his statement at the end saying it should be brought to the floor undermines your interpretation entirely.
The thing that is unprecedented is the majority party of the Senate saying they will not bring it to the floor. Biden said they should bring it to the floor. So he cannot be used as part of your tu quoque machine.
And I will again point out that someone who claims what you do about your integrity has no need for tu quoque arguments in the first place. Either you think it’s okay or it’s not–what other people do is irrelevant.
Well, there was the Abe Fortas case but that was blocked by filibuster rather than by majority opposition. Of course, there was an actual nominee there who had specific issues - it wasn’t an “any nominee will be blocked” approach.
So no, I’m not aware of a more direct comparison. Are you? Or is this a “we should compare apples and oranges here because the alternatives are apples-and-bricks or apples-and-elephants” thing?
You could speculate that if you like. You could also speculate that he meant that while his preference was that the President not nominate anyone he would consider the situation on its merits, which at least bears some resemblance to what he actually said.
His message was “In the event it arises, I don’t think Bush should nominate a SCOTUS Justice this close to an election and, if he does, we’ll have to consider if and how we want to proceed.” Which is significantly different from stating categorically that the Senate will stonewall any nominees, especially considering the timing difference. Even if I agreed with Biden’s 1992 approach, it’s quite a stretch to equate what he said then with what McConnell is saying now in difference circumstances.
Biden pretty clearly stated, in the same speech, that he would consider a moderate nominee. That’s worlds different from the current position of the GOP leadership in the Senate.
You know, if the Supreme Court itself actually believed in the constitution, they could resolve the whole issue today. All it would take was for a conservative justice to threaten to resign.
Across our great nation, Republican heads asplode. From the space station passing over, it sounds like someone making popcorn. Groovy.
I love how conservatives are scrounging through quotes from Democrats, as if something one person said 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or even five years ago should just get us all to lay down and go “Welp, you’re right. Joe Biden is the definitive source on election year Supreme Court nominations.”
Do we really think Mitch McConnell went to his Joe Biden archives to see where the Vice President stood before he made his idiotic proclamation last weekend that the Senate wouldn’t consider any Obama nominees? “I’m sure Biden’s spoken on this. I’ll follow his lead.”
Eleven months out from a new president being sworn in, blocking a Supreme Court nominee before we even know who he/she is is wrong, no matter if the Dems do it or the Pubs. And if, in fact, Joe Biden said what Bricker claims he is saying, apples to apples, it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
But Joe Biden *didn’t *say what Bricker claims he is saying in an apples to apples comparison to what Mitch McConnell is saying. So, keep scrounging…
It’s not their job to interfere in the workings of the executive and legislative branches.
Actually, making sure that the executive and legislative branches follow the constitution is exactly their job.
Plus, it’s a free country. They can resign whenever they want.
When it’s brought before them. They can’t just make declarations/judgements on their own.
Who’s going to stop them?
You are correct; the idea of Obama nominating someone who anything like centrist just to show up the Republicans is pretty far-fetched.
The whole significance of the nomination is that it is Obama’s last chance to affect the country in a way he wants - by replacing a conservative with someone who will agree with him. Giving up that chance just to say “ha ha I made the GOP flip-flop about considering a nomination in an election year” - not likely.
Getting someone to float a trial balloon about it is another thing. Obama and the Dems get the benefit without any of the drawbacks of actually doing anything, or putting forward a real nominee.
Regards,
Shodan
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 prevents them from issuing rulings on matters not before them. Of course, the Justices can resign whenever they like.
And if John Robert were to call Mitch McConnel late at night and say: “Cut the crap. If you don’t ratify a new justice by July, I’m going home,” would he be breaking any law?
Falling for what? I agree with your assessment, but a political party looks foolish by not even considering confirming one of their own so that’s on them. When stuff like that happens as a party it’s time to take a step back and reflect, cause the voters sure are.
Obama hasn’t nominated anyone, so the Senate has nothing to consider.
Regards,
Shodan
Also, Lame Duck means a president in his first term between the point of losing the bid for reelection and the time he packs up his shit and walks out of the White House. Obama has never been a Lame Duck and can never be one.
I blame Sarah Palin’s nonsensical speeches for changing the common usage to mean ‘an ineffectual president’.